A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say which ones.

Q: Why not?

A: I want to preserve my privacy.

Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?

A: I believe I could lose my pension.

Q: On what grounds?

A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.

Q: Harassed by whom?

A: The FBI.

Q: Really?

A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too.

Q: So much for free speech.

A: I was "part of the inner circle." If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.

Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?

A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the overall "brilliance" of modern medicine.

Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?

A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It's one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.

Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.

A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.

Q: Why?

A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.

Q: And then?

A: I did my own investigation.

Q: What conclusions did you come to?

A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.

Q: What conditions?

A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don't contract the diseases as easily.

Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?

A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies.

Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?

A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.

Q: Why?

A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.

Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?

A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases -- say, meningitis -- that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.

Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.

A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.

Q: Which is?

A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.

Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history.

A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.

Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.

A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.

Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.

A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I'm talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors -- that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don't know are in those kidneys.

Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?

A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba.Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.

Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines.

A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time -- which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was a very small "fragment" of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called "foreign protein," which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.

Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.

A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.

Q: How were your findings received?

A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this can't be helped. In making vaccines, you use various animals' tissue, and that's where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines.

Q: This information is pretty staggering.

A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don't find because we don't think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea.We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.

Q: And beyond the purity issue?

A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related "killer cells."

Q: The immune system is?

A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.

Q: So the level of general health is important.

A: More than important. Vital.

Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?

A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you've concealed the root cause of the problem.

Q: And that happens?

A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's circular reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the vaccine.

Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?

A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies.

Q: What was the turning point for you?

A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.

Q: Did you investigate?

A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way.

Q: What do you mean?

A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.

Q: Why doesn't it make sense?

A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn't that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?

Q: And that is what you found?

A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the time.Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation.

Q: Has it been enough?

A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.

Q: Which is?

A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, "This vaccine is safe." But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.

Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.

A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. It's discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations.

Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?

A: Yes I did.

Q: What happened?

A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labeled with "guilt by association." All in all, though, I behaved myself.I made sure I didn't create problems for myself.

Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?

A: First of all, there is no "if." They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn't. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you've said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network.

Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation?

A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but he is on the way to realizing the whole truth. He already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system. He also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue.

Q: This network you speak of.

A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going to be mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue.

Q: And in the industrialized nations?

A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to question medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to take or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines against biowarefare germs are going to win out. This is an important time.

Q: The furor over the hepatits B vaccine seems one good avenue.

A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine-and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles -- is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep B every year from "unknown causes," and that's why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and the so-called studies that back it up.

Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.

A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony Blair's wife is involved with alternative health. There is the possibility that their child has not been given the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press interviews, and made it seem that he was simply objecting to invasive questioning of his "personal and family life." In any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if given the chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to all the families who have come forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR.

Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.

A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with her husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great deal of good if she breaks her promise. I have been told she is under pressure, and not just from her husband. At the level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get into the act. It is thought of as a matter of national security.

Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel.

A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation. It zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop questioning the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.

A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.

Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?

A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They don't need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers -- a few -- might start leaking information.

Q: A good idea.

A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.

Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days?

A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period.

Q: Then we have the fall flu season.

A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.

Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?

A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people, when I think they will use it well.

Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?

A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there.

Q: The things that are not there.

A: Yes.

Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens.

A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn't get THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism, what's called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.

Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?

A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what I'm saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don't get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe.In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings.They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.

Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every day and he was loved by his parents, and he didn't get the measles vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine?

A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time.

Q: How long did you work with vaccines?

A: A long time. Longer than ten years.

Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful?

A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I'm not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.

Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy.

A: The operative word is "appear." What about all the children who can't focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both.

Q: So we come to the level playing field.

A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information.

Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don't get shots.

A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person's responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win._________________________________________________________________

Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a vaccine researcher who worked for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the US government's National Institutes of Health.

Mark retired during the last decade. He says he was "disgusted with what he discovered about vaccines."

As you know, since the beginning of nomorefakenews, I have been launching an attack against non-scientific and dangerous assertions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Mark has been one of my sources.

He is a little reluctant to speak out, even under the cover of anonymity, but with the current push to make vaccines mandatory -- with penalties like quarantine lurking in the wings -- he has decided to break his silence.

He lives comfortably in retirement, but like many of my long-time sources, he has developed a conscience about his former work. Mark is well aware of the scope of the medical cartel and its goals of depopulation, mind control, and general debilitation of populations.

Announcement For Lost Arts Radio Listeners

Dr. Elizabeth Plourde, scientist, author, educator and consultant, visits with us tomorrow night to discuss her work on solutions to EMF dangers. Dr. Plourde is a medical researcher with 30 years experience, who now specializes in women's health issues and how to live with minimal damage and suffering in the ocean of EMF pollution that fills our world today. The information she will share in this interview fits in perfectly with the series of discussions we are having with Barrie Trowe.

At the end of the show, host Richard Sacks begins sharing for the first time what he has uncovered in the past 50 years of his own holistic health research and experimentation. That information has, up to now, not been shared with the public. He urges all his listeners around the world to take an active interest in their personal education and empowerment from the inside out, because all issues are part of the one issue of quality of life on our planet. We will cover many different subjects on these Lost Arts Radio episodes, and all of them are relevant to what you want to accomplish in your chosen area of concern. This is an educational show, and every week's episode is meant for you.

The key to real effectiveness in whatever field of action we choose, is what we are doing on the inside, and that is almost never addressed. This incredibly powerful approach to world change will be discussed, starting after saturday's interview, and will continue with small installments at the end of each week's show for those that have the desire and the courage to go farther.

Try not to miss the show, or at least hear the archive when you can. And if any of you have questions for Barrie Trower, who will be back on the May 2nd show, email them in to richard@lostartsresearchinstitute.com. We'll get to as many as we can.

My name is Dariusz Leszczynski and I am currently Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Helsinki in Finland. I do research in area of biological and health effects of cell phone-emitted radiation since 1997. I will briefly present now, what I said in a slightly more detailed form in my submitted document.

When scientific evidence is unclear, contradictory or ambivalent, careful and unbiased interpretation of it is of paramount importance. However, as it is often the case, such scientific evidence gives a room for a diverse interpretation that may lead to development of contradictory expert opinions, causing confusion impairing development of rational recommendations aimed at protecting the general population.

This is the current situation in area of cell phone- and wireless communication-emitted radiation. Unclear experimental evidence led to polarization of the scientific opinions into two extremes: “no-effect-opinion” and “harmful-effect-opinion”.

Currently, scientists do not agree in the matter of biological and health effects of radiation exposures. Term “consensus” might be misleading for the general public. We should rather speak about differences in scientific opinion.

Recent comment by the Head of the World Health Organization’s EMF Project, Dr. Emilie van Deventer well describes the current situation and I quote her comment given for the ‘The Daily Princetonian’ : “There is no consensus, it’s true. There’s a big group and a little group, but it’s still two groups.”.

Talk about a “big” and a “small” group is a pure speculation because the size of the groups was never examined. From my nearly 19 years’ experience in this area of research, I know that the vast majority of the scientists do not take openly a side in the debate.

Interpretation of scientific evidence by the committees is of most use for the decision makers.

This is the reason why development of unbiased opinions by committees, are of paramount importance.

Opinions of committees are defined by the expert composition. In ideal committee, experts would not have conflict of interest issues and would be independent of any kind of lobbying and only science would matter.

Nearly all the committees dealing with health effects of radiation emitted by wireless communication devices have a problem of biased expert selection, potential conflict of interest and/or potential influence by an industrial lobby, which may occur in spite of set up “firewalls”.

The majority of the committees consist of scientists having the same expert opinion. Individual committees’ experts commonly do not reflect all current scientific opinions.

This concerns both, international committees and national committees.

This includes the committee in Canada that provided evidence for Safety Code 6

The composition of the Health Canada expert committee was clearly biased towards the “no-effect-opinion” and some of the experts are known to advise/consult the telecom industry. This is a serious potential conflict of interest.

The above mentioned system of “firewalls”, to protect experts from influence of industry, does not work. Industry sponsors know who receives funding; sponsored scientists know who provides funding.

This is especially worrisome when the influential ICNIRP committee is in part funded by the industry through “firewall” of the Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia. ICNIRP experts know very well that if the opinions of ICNIRP will be unfavorable for the telecom industry, the sponsorship may end. The “firewall” is only a gimmick.

Currently, WHO EMF Project is preparing evaluation of the scientific evidence concerning health effects of radiation emitted by the wireless communication devices – the so-called ‘Environmental Health Criteria for RF-EMF’ (EHC). The major problem with the draft document of EHC is the lack of balanced presentation of the scientific evidence. EHC draft was written solely by scientists with “no-effect-opinion”.

Environmental Health Criteria document will have a global impact on billions of users of wireless technology and on the multitrillion dollar business. This is why it is very disturbing that preparation of such a document is solely reflecting opinions of ICNIRP, an organization with firm, single-sided, “no-effect-opinion”.

This is a very disturbing situation where one group of experts is given preferential treatment only because of their “close link” with the WHO and where other relevant expert opinions are deliberately and arbitrarily excluded without scientific debate.

Recommendations, for decision makers, developed by committees where memberships are consistently biased towards either “no-effect-opinion” or “harmful-effect-opinion”, are not representative of the whole currently available scientific evidence and should be viewed with extreme caution or outright dismissed until the proper, unbiased evaluation takes place.

To my knowledge, there was only one scientific committee, IARC Working Experts group in 2011, where the full scope of diverse scientific opinions was represented. IARC classification completely disagreed with the one-sided opinions of the majority of international and national committees, including Health Canada.

Until an unbiased, round-table, scientific debate takes place, where all scientific opinions will be duly represented and evaluated, the opinions developed to date by various international and national committees, based on biased expert selections, should be dismissed by decision makers as insufficient.

According to the document of the European Union, from year 2000, on Precautionary Principle, there are three criteria that need to be fulfilled in order to implement Precautionary Principle, and all of them are currently fulfilled:

#2 – There are indications that the possible effects on human health may be potentially dangerous – increased risk of brain cancer in long-term avid users is a dangerous outcome; shown by three replicates of epidemiological studies (European Interphone, Swedish Hardell and French CERENAT)

#3 – Effects are inconsistent with the chosen level of protection – epidemiological studies, showing increased risk in long-term avid users, were generated in populations using regular cell phones, meeting all current safety standards; this means that the current safety standards are insufficient to protect users because risk of developing cancer increases in long-term avid users.

Opponents of the Precautionary Principle need to understand that precaution does not equal prevention of use of wireless technology. Requirements to develop more efficient, less-radiation-emitting, technology and further biomedical research on radiation effects will create new knowledge through research and will create new jobs in research and technology. Implementation of the Precautionary Principle will not prevent technological developments. Claims by some that the implementation of the Precautionary Principle will cause “economic stagnation” are unfounded.

In the current situation, of inadequate review of scientific evidence by groups of scientists with biased selection of members, and until the round-table, unbiased review is performed; decision makers should implement the Precautionary Principle. The reason is not because the harm was proven beyond doubt but because the harm is possible and evidence is uncertain, and suggesting that harmful health effects are possible.

The Precautionary Principle was developed just for such a kind of situations where scientific uncertainty with concomitant indications of possible harm requires society to wait for more scientific evidence.

When scientific evidence is unclear, contradictory or ambivalent, careful and unbiased interpretation of it is of paramount importance. However, as it is often the case, unclear, contradictory or ambivalent scientific evidence gives a room for a diverse interpretation and often hampers, or may even prevent the development of a consensus opinion. Diverse interpretations may lead to development of contradictory expert opinions, causing confusion impairing development of rational recommendations aimed at protecting the general population.

This is the current situation in area of cell phone- and wireless communication-emitted radiation. Unclear, contradictory or ambivalent experimental evidence led to development of diverse scientific interpretations and to polarization of the scientific opinions into two extremes: “no-effect-opinion” and “harmful-effect-opinion”. This extreme polarization of opinions, and unwillingness of experts to participate in an unbiased debate, prevents reaching scientific consensus.

Currently, there is no scientific consensus in the matter of biological and health effects of exposures to radiation emitted by cell phones and wireless communication devices. In spite of claims from some groups of scientists and from the telecom industry, recent comment by the Head of the World Health Organization’s EMF Project, Dr. Emilie van Deventer, negates any consensus claims. Dr. Deventer, in a comment given ‘The Daily Princetonian’ [1] states: “There is no consensus, it’s true. There’s a big group and a little group, but it’s still two groups. I can’t tell you that there’s one group that is completely correct.”.

Statement confirming the existence of two groups with different opinions is correct. However, talk about a “big” and a “small” group is a pure speculation of Dr. Deventer, because the size of the groups was never examined. From my nearly 19 years’ experience in this area of research, I know that the vast majority of the scientists do not take openly a side in the debate. However, there are two, of limited-size, vocal groups of scientists speaking for the “no-effect-opinion” or for the “harmful-effect-opinion”.

There are three levels of interpretation of the scientific evidence. The first level is executed by scientists performing research and interpreting its meaning in published peer-reviewed experimental studies. The second level of interpretation is executed by scientists writing review articles, summarizing scientific evidence in a specific area of research, and providing generalized interpretation of the results obtained in numerous individual experimental studies. The third level of interpretation is executed by groups of scientists, members of various committees, attempting generalized interpretation of the scientific evidence using both, individual experimental studies and review studies.

The third-level interpreters of science – committees – are of most use for the decision makers, developing protective measures for the general population. Decision makers are not science experts and rely on committees to provide advice.

This is the reason why unbiased opinions, expressed by various science evaluation committees, are of paramount importance.

Opinions of various committees are largely defined by the expert composition of the committee. In an ideal committee, all valid scientific opinions should be sufficiently well represented and open and unbiased scientific debate should be used to develop unbiased expert opinion, ideally representing a consensus. In ideal committee, experts would not have conflict of interest issues and would be independent of any kind of lobbying. In ideal committee, only science would matter.

Nearly all the committees dealing with health effects of radiation emitted by wireless communication devices have a problem of biased expert selection, potential conflict of interest and/or potential influence by an industrial lobby, which may occur in spite of set up “firewalls”.

The majority of the committees consist of scientists having the same expert opinion. Individual committees’ experts commonly do not reflect all current scientific opinions. Few examples of the most influential committees are:

ICNIRP (“no-effect-opinion”) is a committee where current members of the Main Commission select new members to the Main Commission.

ICES/SC4 (“no-effect-opinion”) is a committee where any scientist can apply to participate but the committee is clearly dominated, including chairmanship, by the industrial experts who have a strong number-advantage in any voting situation.

SCENIHR (“no-effect-opinion”) is a committee dealing with a broad variety of risks, of which wireless communication is only a small part. Only two members of SCENIHR are experts in health effects of radiation emitted by wireless communication devices. These two SCENIHR experts select ad-hoc experts to develop reviews of science – clearly these ad-hoc experts are selected by SCENIHR experts to have the same opinion as SCENIHR experts.

BioInitiative (“harmful-effect-opinion”) is a committee where members are selected based on similarity of expert opinions.

ICEMS (“harmful-effect-opinion”) is a committee where members are selected based on similarity of expert opinions.

The same biased expert selection problem concerns the national expert groups that developed advisory opinions in Sweden (SSI), United Kingdom (AGNIR), Australia (ARPANSA), and for the Health Canada to update the Safety Code 6.

The composition of the Health Canada expert committee, similarly to other mentioned committees, was clearly biased towards the “no-effect-opinion” and some of the experts are known to advise/consult the telecom industry. This is a serious potential conflict of interest.

The above mentioned and currently used system of “firewalls”, to protect experts from influence of industry, does not work. Industry sponsors know who receives funding; sponsored scientists know who provides funding. Industry and lobbyists do not need to say “things” aloud and scientists understand “things” that are not said.

This is especially worrisome development when the influential committee, like ICNIRP, is in part funded by the industry through “firewall” of the Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia. ICNIRP experts know very well that if the opinions of ICNIRP will be unfavorable for the telecom industry, the sponsorship may end. The “firewall” is only a gimmick.

Currently, WHO EMF Project is preparing evaluation of the scientific evidence concerning health effects of radiation emitted by the wireless communication devices – the so-called ‘Environmental Health Criteria for RF-EMF’ (EHC). The problem with the draft document of EHC, which will be used as a basis for the development of the final EHC, is the lack of balanced presentation of the scientific evidence. The process of writing the EHC draft was clearly dominated by ICNIRP scientists [2] and those with “no-effect-opinion”; such as M. Feychting, G. Oftedal, E. van Rongen and M.R. Scarfi. The reason behind this situation is caused by the fact that the Head of the WHO EMF Project, Dr. Emilie van Deventer, is an engineer and has no expertise whatsoever in evaluation bio-medical research. She has to fully rely, and trust, in opinions of others.

EHC document that will be in due time prepared under the auspices of WHO EMF Project will have a global impact on billions of users of wireless technology and on the multitrillion dollar business. This is why it is very disturbing that preparation of such a document is solely reflecting opinions of ICNIRP, an organization with firm, single-sided, “no-effect-opinion”. This is a very disturbing situation where one group of experts is given preferential treatment only because of their “close link” with the WHO and where other relevant expert opinions are deliberately and arbitrarily excluded without any scientific debate.

Recommendations for decision makers, developed by committees where memberships are consistently biased towards either “no-effect-opinion” or “harmful-effect-opinion” (ICNIRP, ICES/SC4, SCENIHR, BioInitiative, ICEMS, SSI, AGNIR, ARPANSA, Health Canada, etc), are not representative of the whole currently available scientific evidence and should be dismissed until the proper, unbiased evaluation takes place.

To my knowledge, there was only one scientific committee, IARC Working Experts group in 2011, where the full scope of diverse scientific opinions was represented. The scientists, in an open and unbiased debate, developed an opinion that radiation emitted by wireless communication devices is a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B of IARC scale). IARC classification completely disagreed with the one-sided opinions of ICNIRP, ICES/SC4, SCENIHR, BioInitiative, ICEMS, SSI, AGNIR, ARPANSA and Health Canada.

Until an unbiased scientific debate takes place, where all scientific opinions will be duly represented and evaluated, the opinions developed by committees such as e.g. ICNIRP, ICES/SC4, SCENIHR, BioInitiative, ICEMS, SSI, AGNIR, ARPANSA and Health Canada, based on biased expert selections, should be dismissed by decision makers as insufficient.

According to the document of the European Union on Precautionary Principle, there are three criteria that need to be fulfilled in order to implement Precautionary Principle, and all of them are currently fulfilled:

Criterion #2 – There are indications that the possible effects on human health may be potentially dangerous – three replicates of epidemiological case control studies (European Interphone, Swedish Hardell and French CERENAT) show an increased risk of brain cancer in long-term avid users

Criterion #3 – Effects are inconsistent with the chosen level of protection – epidemiological studies, showing increased risk in long-term avid users, were generated in populations using regular cell phones, meeting all current safety standards; this means that the current safety standards are insufficient to protect users because risk of developing cancer increases in long-term avid users.

Opponents of the Precautionary Principle need to understand that precaution does not equal prevention of use of wireless technology. Requirements to develop more efficient, less-radiation-emitting, technology and further biomedical research on radiation effects will create new knowledge through research and will create new jobs in research and technology. Implementation of the Precautionary Principle will not prevent technological developments. Claims by some that the implementation of the Precautionary Principle will cause “economic stagnation” are unfounded.

In the current situation, of inadequate review of scientific evidence by groups of scientists with biased selection of members, and until the round-table, unbiased review is performed; decision makers should implement the Precautionary Principle. The reason is not because the harm was proven beyond doubt but because the harm is possible and evidence is uncertain, and suggesting that harmful health effects are possible.

The Precautionary Principle was developed just for such a kind of situations where scientific uncertainty with concomitant indications of possible harm requires society to wait for more scientific evidence and for better evaluation of the scientific evidence. Saying, “better to be safe than sorry” applies here.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Recommended Australian website

I just had a look at the redesigned EMR Aware website from Byron area, in New South Wales, Australia. An excellent resource for Australians concerned about the unintended consequences of wireless technologies.Recommended!

Don

************************************************Excerpt

Welcome

This website is published by EMR Aware, a not-for-profit community association based in Byron Shire on the Northcoast of NSW Australia. We offer technical support to residents and government agencies in our vicinity, and worldwide, regarding the health, social and environmental impacts of technologies that subject users to electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

We are not anti-technology or anti-corporation. Our premise is simply this. In instances where products or services carry a documented risk consumers have a right to know the benefits vs. potential negative impacts. This enables both a change in habits, and motivation to demand safer products or legislation where appropriate.

Is cell phone radiation actually dangerous? We asked an expert

harmful in terms of cancer risk, particularly to the head and neck,” says Joel M.

Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of

California at Berkeley. “A lot of scientists have come round to the view that

radiofrequency radiation is probably carcinogenic because of new research that has

emerged since 2011.”

That was the year the World Health
Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” A
panel of 31 expert scientists from 14 different countries concluded
radiofrequency radiation, which is emitted by cell phones and other wireless
communication devices should be placed in Group 2B alongside a fairly long list
of other substances that includes lead, coffee, nickel, and gasoline.

But is it really so dangerous? Despite the
passionate views espoused by many experts, others are confident that the risk
is overblown, or at least reluctant to push for sweeping societal changes. So
should you be afraid, or gab away as usual? We asked a few experts to find out
the truth.

Independent studies are showing danger

Cell phone emissions were classified
as “possibly carcinogenic” based on an increased risk of glioma, which is the
most common form of brain cancer, but they were also strongly linked with
another type of tumor, benign acoustic neuromas. A lot of the available evidence
back in 2011 came from a series of studies known as the Interphone
studies, which were partly funded by the wireless communications
industry.

A panel of 31 expert scientists from 14
different countries classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as
“possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

“I’ve been tracking the research for five
years now and the evidence of the effect is growing stronger,” Moskowitz told
Digital Trends. “This is perhaps in part because the new studies are
independent, not funded by the wireless industry.”

Back in 2006, Henry Lai, a professor at
the University of Washington analyzed all available studies on cell phone
radiation from 1990 to 2006. He found that 50 percent of the 326 studies showed
a biological effect from radio-frequency radiation, but when he divided them
into independently funded studies and those funded by the wireless industry he
found the split was 70 – 30.

“Even if you accept all the industry
studies, you still end up with 50-50,” Lai told Seattle Mag in 2011. “How could 50
percent all be garbage? People always start with the statement ‘hundreds of
studies have been done on this topic, and no effect has been found’ — but this
is a very misleading statement.”

Another potentially telling revelation is
that the industry can’t get product liability insurance for mobile devices.
Some people within the insurance industry feel that there’s a real risk of a
wave of lawsuits related to brain tumors and other conditions caused by cell
phones over the next couple of decades. Insurance giant the Swiss Re Group
included “unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields” in its Emerging Risk Insights report.

“Governments are flying blind on this,
they’re either ignorant or they’re in denial,” Moskowitz says. “In part it’s
ignorance, but in part they’re getting pressure from an industry that dwarfs
big tobacco. It’s just too profitable, about a sixth of your cell phone bill in
the U.S. goes to government in fees or taxes.”

Do we all have our heads in the sand? This
is a controversial topic and it’s hard to get definitive answers. We
decided to speak to Dr. Kurt Straif, Head of the World Health Organization
program that classified RF electromagnetic fields as “possibly
carcinogenic” back in 2011. And in Straif’s eyes, the situation is far muddier.

“We don’t know for sure if it’s causing
cancer or not.”

“We’ve done almost 1,000 different agent
assessments,” Dr. Straif told Digital Trends, “and this is probably the most
heated controversy in terms of strong believers — scientists in the
field that say we already know it’s causing cancer to the other extreme that
says every additional cent spent on research is wasted because we know it can
never cause cancer.”

The IARC Monographs program Straif headed
up was formed with the backing of the World Health Organization and the United
Nations, at the request of member states looking to identify substances and
circumstances that are known to cause cancer in humans, and to make that
information available for cancer prevention.

An independent advisory group suggests
topics and the Monographs group decides what to pursue. It gathers all the
published research, identifies the best experts in the world for each topic,
and they draft working papers, and then there is an 8 day meeting to
classify each possible carcinogen and create a volume of Monographs.

Dr. Kurt Straif, left, led the World
Health Organization program that classified cell phone radiation as “possibly
carcinogenic to humans.”“The Monographs are the most authoritative program in
cancer-hazard identification, running for the longest time, looking at all
types of environmental exposure, but also known for being the strongest program
in terms of a very strict policy to exclude conflicts of interest,”
Straif explains. “Scientists with a link to industry, or on the other
hand, scientists with a very strong link to advocacy groups, would not be
eligible to serve on the working group.”

He points out that, though the Interphone
study was partly funded by industry, there was a very strict firewall in place
overseen by the Union for International Cancer Control.

“I did not sense any strong orchestrated
efforts by industry to influence the outcome of the 2011 meeting,” he told us.

We can safely say that the IARC group is
impartial. It’s no stranger to controversy and it does not bend to big business.
Take for example the recent classification of glyphosate — the main chemical in
the pesticide Roundup — as “probably carcinogenic,” a move that incurred
the wrath of Monsanto, the pesticide’s maker. Glyphosate is in group 2A, which
is still one step down from Group 1, “carcinogenic to humans.” Radiofrequency
EMF radiation was placed in Group 2B, largely based on cell phone studies. So
what does the “possibly carcinogenic” classification actually mean?

The IARC, headquartered in Lyon, France, conducts research without funding from the wireless industry.

Wikipedia

The IARC, headquartered in Lyon, France,
conducts research without funding from the wireless industry.

Wikipedia

“It means that there is scientific
evidence, in this case limited evidence from the human studies, that it could
cause cancer in humans,” says Straif. “There is also limited evidence from
animal studies, and there is weak mechanistic data. These three things together
result in the evaluation of possibly carcinogenic.”

There is currently no firm plan to
reassess radiofrequency EMF radiation, but Dr. Straif says it is on the radar,
and if important new evidence was to emerge, the IARC Monographs group could
make it a priority.

“Knowing about the studies that have been
published since 2011, I think that the epidemiological evidence is still
limited,” says Straif, making it clear that this is his personal opinion and
not that of the IARC group. “It has not changed in the one or the other
direction. There are lots of different scientific groups out there. Some think
with the new publications that the human evidence is now sufficient to result
in a Group 1 classification as a known human carcinogen. I don’t think these
studies would change the current overall evaluation of 2B.”

Follow by Email

Followers

About Me

While I have always been extremely health conscious and am presently in excellent health, I did become temporarily out-of-commission (i.e. I was really sick) in 2005 with a number of at the time unexplainable symptoms. I was quite puzzled at the time because I had been eating mainly organically grown food, drinking spring water, doing Yoga every morning, and going to the gym several times a week. In other words, I was doing everything one is supposed to do to stay healthy. I was not supposed to get sick. It took me six months before discovering or even imagining the main source of the problem - which was in fact "overexposure to electromagnetic" - especially microwave - radiation. I was living within 200 meters of two cell phone towers at the time and within 500 meters of a 3rd one with numerous WiFi signals bleeding into my apartment from adjacent neighbors. I developed a host of symptoms, which are found in what has been misleadingly described as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) -- but much more accurately described as Radio Wave or Microwave Sickness. Large numbers of people in the USA suddenly started getting sick in 1984...